The following quotes were taken from an article in the January 29th Wall Street Journal titled "Philip Morris Readies Aggressive Global Push". The article talks about their pursuit of "product innovation" particularly in developing markets.
Among the new products in test phase is a hand-held electronic smoking device called the Heatbar, which emits less smoke than a regular cigarette. Another is Marlboro Wides -- an extra-thick cigarette whose package flips open from one side. To appeal to customers in some emerging markets, the company is making sweet-smelling cigarettes that contain tobacco, cloves and flavoring -- with twice the tar and nicotine levels of a conventional U.S. cigarette.While smoking rates in developed countries have slowly declined, they have shot up dramatically in some developing counties, where PMI is a major player. These include Pakistan (up 42% since 2001), Ukraine (up 36%) and Argentina (up 18%).
Here is a link talking about their new product innovation:http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid1395217394So the question becomes...is Philip Morris behaving in a socially responsibile manner by creating these products? If so, why? If not, why not? Who are the stakeholders that they are serving with this strategy? Which stakeholders may not be happy with their strategy? Is it ok to put out cigarettes that have twice the tar and nicotine levels of conventional U.S. cigarettes in the developing world even if the people in the developing world prefer the higher levels of nicotine?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
cigarette companies are almost as bad as drug companies. after all the lawsuits where they knew that cigarettes were bad but they still sold them anyway, its amazing that they're still in business. instead of a little warning that we have here, it should be like in Europe where is simply says in big letters "SMOKING KILLS". its not ethical to sell harmful product, especially if people in poorer countries don't realize how harmful they are. but business is still business, so if governments or other organizations don't stop them, then it is okay to do what they're doing. if there are no speed limits on the streets, then its okay to speed, even if you know you'll increase the chance of an accident.
i meant oil companies, but drug companies are bad also
Although PMI provides cigarettes that, as everybody knows, is an unhealthy product, I think, the company is behaving in the CSR frame because customers know what kind of product they purchase. Besides, by producing their new products that emit less smoke, PMI tries to reduce environmental impact. In my opinion, there is no need to accuse this company in providing such product because people have been smoking for hundreds years and they will continue no matter what. For example, in early 90s Ukrainian government tried to prohibit smoking and selling cigarettes on the territory of Ukraine. As a result, banning was stopped after two months because somehow people got cigarettes from different sources and tobacco had stayed on the same stage with drugs. Today every pack of tobacco in Ukraine sells with a big signs in front of the pack that tell what kind of illness cigarettes can cause. What considers cigarettes with less tar and nicotine level in developed countries, I convinced, this is a good idea because if people don’t want to quit, at least they can become accustomed to a lower level of nicotine in their bodies.
I beleieve PMI is not socially irresponsible because people can choose not to smoke here in the U.S the same as anywhere else in the world. People are the stake holders of their own health. However if you are a smoker, you can always choose your regular brand that has light tar and nicotine. Flavors depend on people's taste. In developing countries however the government maybe can't fund a surgens general assemble, or a national cancer society to ban these highly hazardous cigarettes. Now i ask you this if Jack Daniel's whisky puts more cirosis causing alcohol in its whisky should it be called a socially irresponsible company?
I believe that PMI is not acting in the CSR frame, because they know themselves that cigarettes are not healthy,but since the developed countries stepped up the anti-smoking laws and laesuits. PMI is targeting the less developed countries because the government has more important issues at hand right know.
So that's why they aren't enforcing laws when it comes to smoking. I don't think it's all right to put out cigarettes with a higher nicotine content but PMI has nothing to lose except time, so they need to make their new customers addicted to their product as fast as possible. That way if some politicians will want to pass laws, people might revolt because they're already hooked to the cigarettes.
Developing a device that limits second hand smoke is nice for the people around you but personally I think the device was too bulky looking and would not take off here. As far as people smoking cigeretes with high nicotine levels, let them do it if thats what they want, its very hard to stop people with smoking adictions and the people doing it now are taking a understood risk so it is not the distributers mistake its the individuals.
Unfortunately, there are many harmful products on the LEGAL market including various forms of tabacco and alcohol. I do not believe that selling products that may be unhealthy is in any way unethical. If it was unethical, that would mean that fast-food chains like McDonalds would also be unethical because I can argue that eating McDonalds everyday for one year may cause much more harm to your body than smoking a cigeratte everyday for one year. Large companies like PMI are always trying to create something new and innovative, thats why they are so successful. There is a warning on every pack of cigerattes, therefore everyone knows the effects of smoking. Regardless of the increase in nicotine and tar, people will continue to buy these products because obviously the fact that cigerattes are harmful does not stop anyone who wishes to smoke. I am not a smoker myself, but I know that price is a big concern and PMI will have to make sure that the new product does not have a price-tag that exceeds what the customers are willing to pay for a smoke.
i think hat making sweet smelling and flavored cigarettes is not a good idea because i will just have ids be atracted to the flavor and then they will think that smoking is even better than it was. also the higher levels of nicotine and tar is not good also because i will cause people to have a higher tolerance for their addiction to cigarettes so then they will have o smoke more. and because there are higher levels of tar they will not be living even shorter than when smoking conventional cigarettes.
As long as they are publishing the ingredients, amounts, and warnings, Phillip Morris is being responsible. Their business is tobacco products, smoking is a choice, all they are doing is identifying new markets and advertising them effectively. They could put out cigarettes with one thousand times the nicotine and they would not be doing wrong. If the nicotine is a problem they will learn through customer feedback and drop in sales.
I belive that Phillip Morris is doing nothing wrong as long as they let comsumers know about the changes and how much extra is going into a ciggarette. I personally disaprove of it because i think smoking is a terrible thing that people can do to their body. But smoking a choice peole make and its phiilip morris choice to put twice the nicotine in if they want to.
I dont think that PMI is socially responsible, nor do they have to be. they are a cigarette company! they have a prodcut that kills millions of people each year. what can they do that is socially responsible that makes up for that? people have their own choice to smoke and as for them developing different flavors and such, that is just marketing. they find out what the consumer would like and want and then develope it.
Post a Comment